Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts United States

Huawei CFO Says HSBC Emails Disprove Basis For US Extradition Claim (reuters.com) 48

Posted by BeauHD from the latest-developments dept.
AltMachine shares a report from Reuters: "Lawyers fighting the extradition of Huawei's chief financial officer to the United States on Tuesday presented internal emails from British bank HSBC that they said disproved U.S. claims that Huawei misled the bank," reports Reuters. "CFO Meng Wanzhou's legal team said the emails and documents submitted to a Canadian court showed at least two senior HSBC leaders were aware of connections between Huawei and its Iranian subsidiary, Skycom. Meng's lawyers are trying to add the documents to evidence. They are meant to counter U.S. charges that only junior employees of the British bank knew about the true nature of relationship between Huawei and Skycom. U.S. prosecutors have alleged that Meng misled HSBC about Huawei's business dealings in Iran and may have caused the bank to break U.S. sanctions."

Business dealings with Iran was not illegal under Canada laws as the sanction was not a UN resolution and had no legal basis internationally. The only way for the extradition to proceed would be to show Huawei misled HSBC which operates in the U.S. Amid intensifying US-China technology and economic rivalry, it is not the first time the U.S. law enforcement fabricating false accusation against Chinese or China-linked persons. Earlier in April, U.S. court trial reveals federal agents falsely accused a UT professor born in China of spying and three Congressmen are asking the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General to "review whether the China Initiative puts untoward pressure on DOJ personnel to engage in racial or ethnic profiling." Federal agents falsely accused Hu of spying for China based solely on a Google search, testimony revealed. After Hu refused to work as a spy for the U.S. government, agents stalked and harassed him for more than two years, leading to the destruction of his reputation and internationally renowned career.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Huawei CFO Says HSBC Emails Disprove Basis For US Extradition Claim More

Huawei CFO Says HSBC Emails Disprove Basis For US Extradition Claim

Comments Filter:

  • Knowing and misleading are not the same thing (Score:3, Informative)

    by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @07:17PM (#61538976)
    The crux of the US charge is that Huawei's CFO misled HSBC on connections between Huawei and its Iranian subsidiary, Skycom. Huawei claims that is not true because two senior HSBC leaders knew of the connection. Both can be true as Huawei could have misled HSBC even if senior leaders of HSBC knew different. For example I can say to my partner that I am not eating her ice cream while she is watching the surveillance footage of me eating her ice cream. Did I mislead her? Yes. Did she know? Yes.

    • I disagree. Misleading requires that the person does not know they are being mislead, otherwise it is not leading at all, let alone misleading. Misleading is different to lying.

      • My guess is that the US government wanted to criminalize accurate statements calculated to leave a false impression about business dealings with Iran--rather than create a loophole for unsuccessful liars. But I have not read the charges.
      • HSBC is a large organization; Huawei does not clarify that the persons they misled were the same people that knew.

    • Yeah, but the crux of the extradition hearing is supposed to be to check if the allegations are real allegations. If they're true or not is irrelevant. I doubt they'll succeed at adding this to evidence.

      This is evidence they need to present to the US court.

      And while what you say is true, it is worse than that, because HSBC is an organization. Obviously it is possible to mislead an organization, even if some employees know the truth about the matter. It is just a specious claim for them to say this proves it

    • Sorry but no. If the leadership knew then they are responsible for the banks actions. The Crux of the charge is that HSBC was unaware of the connections and hence it is Huawei's fault which appears to not be true if the emails are authentic.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ghoul ( 157158 )
      So when is Colin Powell getting extradited for misleading the world on Iraqi WMDs?

    • This is wrong.

      The elements of criminal fraud requires that the hearer actually justifiably relies on the piece of information that happens to be false. If the hearer knows the statement is false, how can they justifiably rely on the piece of information? Therefore no fraud. HSBC can't state that their actions or any injury was due to the false statement because they knew that the statement was false but still did the action.

      • The elements of criminal fraud requires that the hearer actually justifiably relies on the piece of information that happens to be false.

        By that logic, I can say what I want while being questioned by law enforcement if they know everything I am telling them not to be true. I cannot be charged with lying to the police if they knew I was lying.

        • No. We are talking about criminal fraud which causes an injury due to reliance on the information provided.

          You are just talking about just "lying" in the common way of talking about lying to every day common people, not before the court of law. This is where you're making a mistake. Lying is just ONE element of fraud. For fraud, the speaker must be lying, and know that what they are saying is false. But the hearer MUST rely on what the speaker is saying to their detriment in order for the fraud to be c

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      But what does the law say?

      If the law says they had to notify in a specific way and they didn't then the US might have a case. If not then the fact that senior people are HSBC knew shifts the blame onto HSBC.

    • I suggest you find yourself a dictionary.

      For example I can say to my partner that I am not eating her ice cream while she is watching the surveillance footage of me eating her ice cream. Did I mislead her? Yes. Did she know? Yes.

      No you did not mislead her, you lied to her. To mislead she would need to justifiably believe you have told her the truth. similarly HSBC can't have been mislead if they were aware of the truth.

  • Dear author: The world is not all blind Murica vassal states.

    Knowing that somebody refused to spy for the US despite massive harassment by that terror state is probably the biggest plus somebody could ever have for their reputation.

    The USA is coming apart at the seams. It shows its true monstrous grimace, and it is just as evil as China's.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      This is stated about the world where people from all over the world, from those wonderful "countries that aren't vassals to US" are so desperate to come to immigrate to US, they are willing to go through places where they get raped and tortured with near 100% likelihood. Just for a chance to live in that "monstrous country" that is "just as evil as China".

      For some reason, same is not true for China. At best, China is a transit point for North Koreans trying to get to South Korea. At worst, it's one of those

  • If the junior employees know but the senior ones don't then the USA should be prosecuting HSBC for their incompetence rather than Meng Wanzhou.

  • Was the editor 5? That is terrible use of the English language. I couldn't even finish a paragraph.

Slashdot Top Deals

Veni, Vidi, VISA: I came, I saw, I did a little shopping.

Close